2015-09-01 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

3.Design review of a proposed wall sign for “Lava Java” restaurant for applicant and location described above. Mr. Childs identified the depicted sign location on the proposed building, as shown on the building perspective drawing submitted with the renovation and expansion plans reviewed immediately prior to this sign permit application review. He noted several apparent inconsistencies with the Sign Code provisions regulating signs in Kailua Village, and Zoning Code regulations: 1.Contrary to the sign permit application identification of the proposed sign as a wall sign, it appeared to be in fact a “projecting sign.” The area of the sign, when calculated according to the method proscribed in the Sign Code, appeared to comprise approximately 17 square feet, rather than the 12 square foot area represented in the application. 2.At a mounting height of approximately 14 feet, the sign may be proposed at a height exceeding the nine feet allowable under the Sign Code. With regard to these two matters, Mr. Childs explained that he was merely making a literal interpretation of the Sign Code language, and that decisions of compliance and permissibility of a particular sign proposal are made by the Department of Public Works, not the Planning Department. 3.The horizontal length of the proposed sign, as shown on the submitted plans, extends into the “front yard,” as defined and regulated by the Zoning Code, beyond the allowable extension limit of six feet. Thus, a sign permit application for the proposed sign would not be approved by the Planning Department if presented in its current size and location on the building. Mr. Childs noted that the sign coloration and design appeared to be fully consistent with the sign design guidelines for Kailua-Kona. Commissioners expressed support for the proposed mounting height as an appropriate design means to visually integrate the upper and lower stories of the building as one business operation. Commissioners asked the applicant if the sign was to be lit, such as by directed exterior lighting, due to it high placement on the building if approved in that position. Mr. Jeff Fischer, on behalf of the applicant, stated that they had not considered sign lighting but may do so if encouraged by the commissioners. The applicant’s architect, Roger Brasel, presented an illustration of an alternate sign design and placement which would comply with the sign code and zoning code requirements identified (above) by Mr. Childs. Commissioners expressed their beliefs that the original location was superior for a variety of design and functionality reasons, but that the sign size (area of the sign) should be reduced to meet the limitations of the Sign Code for twelve square feet. Following discussion, Commissioner Andreae moved for the Commission’s recommendation of approval with the height as presented, and with the condition that the sign area be reduced to 12 square feet as required by the sign code. Commissioner Kern seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. 3